text:
My most recent contributions to T-Nation have evoked several LiveSpill comments asking about my thoughts on how older athletes should be training.
It occurred to me that I do in fact have a few things to say about the subject, given that I'm in my 50's and have been training for nearly three decades.
As it turns out, successful lifting for Masters athletes is remarkably similar to the way that younger guys should train, but there are a handful of strategies that can make the process more efficient and fruitful.
Here then, are my 7 principles for Masters lifters.
1 – Maintain A High Protein Intake
As you age, your ability to digest protein gradually declines, necessitating a higher protein intake than you needed when you were younger.
This is something I've just begun to appreciate, and as I mentioned in my last T Nation article, I've recently doubled my personal protein intake with fantastic results.
After 4 months at 250 grams/day, I literally can't train hard enough to get sore. The effect of protein on satiety, body composition, and recovery are indisputable as well.
Although high protein diets do not necessitate supplementation, a good protein powder that you personally like can make life much, much easier. I mix Metabolic Drive® Low Carb with frozen fruit in shakes, and also mix it into oatmeal and Greek yogurt to increase the protein content of meals I already like.
If you don't want to look and perform like everyone else, don't eat like everyone else! This morning while at the grocery store, I scanned several people's carts as I passed them – and most carts weren't characterized by high carb or high fat foods per se, they were noteworthy for low protein foods.
2 – Choose The Right Activities
I remember having a recent conversation with Dr. Stu McGill about Asian versus European hip structure. McGill's belief is that not all people have the necessary structure to safely do deep squats or deadlifts from the floor.
For such individuals, McGill recommends partial squats and/or rack pulls from whatever starting position he deems safe for your individual structure. McGill doesn't view these modifications as compromises, but as smart training decisions designed to increase safety and performance.
The take-home point is, try to find training movements and/or sport(s) that you can do safely, and ideally, succeed at. While there are, for example, guys in their 60's and 70's who can compete in Olympic weightlifting, strongman, or powerlifting, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can do the same.
Successful ageing is about being healthy and pain-free, first and foremost. What good does it do to say that you compete in strongman contests if you're downing a bottle of Ibuprofen every month just to keep yourself in the gym?
Better to make wiser choices that allow you to get stronger, leaner, and faster (or whatever your goals happen to be) without rearing up to bite you in the ass 5 or 10 years down the road.
Pain isn't an inevitable part of training in your later years. I used to think it was until I had my first pain-free year ever, in 2012.
What do I mean pain free you ask? Aside from a slightly tweaked low back early in the year, which left me a bit stiff for a few days, I literally had no orthopedic pain or symptoms whatsoever. And during this year I deadlifted 501, power cleaned 230, squatted 403, and benched around 260. So my lack of pain wasn't due to sticking with light weights, it was due to smart exercise choices and programming.
In the interest of transparency, I should confess that I'm currently struggling with some pain in my right shoulder (a combination of low-bar squatting and bench pressing), but I'm being smart about managing this by using exercise and load adjustments.
More specifically, I've switched to using a cambered bar for squats and close-grip bench presses instead of wider grip, and I immediately stop what I'm doing if and when I experience pain on any level.
So far, the shoulder is responding very well and I expect to have a very successful powerlifting competition coming up in April.
3 - Recalibrate Your Expectations
I'm somewhat atypical in that I'm experiencing my best training results right now, at age 53. Most Masters lifters, however, were in their prime in their 20's or 30's. If you fit into the latter category, it's pivotal that you manage your expectations in a way that keeps you motivated and making progress.
Base your expectations on your current status and rate of progress, not on what you did "back in the day." Personally, my attitude is, "What have you done for me lately?" As such I wipe the slate clean every New Year's Day. In other words, I don't boast about PR's I did 10 years ago.
Sure, I'm always trying to beat last year's personal records, but what really counts in my mind is what I can do currently.
4 – Restore Optimal Testosterone Levels
I'm not talking steroids here, which are expensive, illegal, and potentially dangerous. I'm referring to Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), which is legal, medically supervised, safe, and a lot easier to do than most guys think. Here's how you can get started:
Google "Testosterone replacement" or "Low T" for your local area. Once you've found a nearby clinic, ask if they'll take your health insurance (there's a very good chance that your policy will cover TRT). If they don't take your insurance, ask what the monthly "out of pocket" cost is.
Next, set up an initial appointment. Most clinics will conduct a brief medical exam, a health history interview, and a blood test. If your total Testosterone is less than the required threshold (which varies from state to state – in Arizona where I live, it's 500), you qualify for Testosterone replacement.
Typically, TRT patients go to the clinic weekly for injections, but some clinics allow you to inject yourself at home. Testosterone cream is also sometimes prescribed, but this is less common.
Injections are usually done in the upper glute, and they are not at all painful – I'd say that 8 out of 10 injections are (for me anyway) barely perceptible.
When I first got my total Testosterone tested at age 49 it was 434. Today I'm nearly double that number and the effects on my energy, recovery, body composition, and overall mood are undeniable. If you weren't aware of, or have been on the fence about TRT, I strongly urge you to look into it.
5 – Don't Be So Sure That Age Is Your Achilles' Heel
A few years back, I took stock of my overall preparation and made a list of everything that could be considered a potential weak-point. It looked like this:
- Orthopedic health/status
- Nutrition/supplementation
- Training environment
- Life stress
- Age
- Motivation
- Skills/Knowledge
- Social support
- Overall health
I then ranked each item from 1-9, according to how significantly each item negatively impacts my ability to make further progress.
For me at least, "age" wasn't number 1 on the list – orthopedic health was. I doggedly addressed that item until it was replaced by nutrition, which I then took steps to correct.
Currently, age is at the top of my list – and that's the way it should be. There's nothing I can do about it anyway, so it's not really a problem.
I strongly urge you to construct your own list and evaluate yourself as I did. It's a very enlightening process.
6 – Ruthlessly Maximize Training Economy
One of my better-known sound bytes is, "Everything you do in the gym has a cost, but not everything has a benefit."
I probably don't need to explain this in much greater detail, but I will say that many lifters have a dysfunctional relationship with pain. In our formative years in the gym, most of us noticed that hard work pays off, and that it's necessary to get out of our comfort zone in order to make progress.
Unfortunately, many of us take the "no pain, no gain" philosophy too far, and end up doing much more work than what's needed to make optimal progress. As we age, it takes longer to recover from workouts and it also takes longer for injuries to heal.
Instead of thinking, "What else could I do?" I suggest adopting a miserly approach to training. Think, "Will I really benefit from doing this, or am I better off skipping it?"
Don't misinterpret the above to mean that I'm a HIT advocate or a "twice a week" guy by the way. If you look at my training journal here, you'll see that I typically train 4 days a week, implementing multiple sets per exercise.
With that said, however, I'm very careful to make sure that the exercises I choose are safe (for me), effective (for my personal objectives and bodytype), and not redundant.
I also take care to make every opportunity count – while I do plan my training, I'll always "strike when the iron is hot," looking for any opportunity to hit a PR whenever I can. New PR's (which can be 1RM's and/or "rep records") are very important for psychological and emotional reasons, and they also provide feedback on your current performance status.
7 – Specialize, But Don't Let Yourself Suck At Anything
I'm currently competing in powerlifting and have always valued maximal strength and power over other athletic qualities, but I've always had a theory that as a Masters athlete, you shouldn't let any physical quality or capacity erode to "suck" levels.
Now I don't know what "suck" entails for each quality or what it means for you personally, but I'll give you a rough idea of what I'm talking about.
For me, even if I can deadlift 500 pounds, I find it unacceptable to get winded after climbing a few flights of stairs, or to be unable to touch my toes while maintaining a neutral lumbar spine.
In other words, I have a set of personal standards that are important to me. These criteria may not have any objective, rational basis whatsoever, but I don't really care – these are my standards, so I make the rules.
Incidentally, I'm careful of doing my best to avoid "typical" old-guy mannerisms, such as groaning when rising from a chair, or saying dumb shit like "age is just a number." And I never, ever allow myself to think or say anything that ends with "...for my age."
Now don't miss my point – I'm acutely aware that, at age 53, my body isn't the same as it was in my 20's. It's most certainly different, but not entirely in a bad way. In most respects I'm fitter and more capable than I've ever been.
There's a "sweet spot" when it comes to having a positive attitude about ageing – it's not productive to be in denial about reality, but you don't need to be a pussy about it either.
As a final thought on this point, I do find a lot of value in "acting as if." In other words, if you want to be a certain way, act that way first – even if it really is just acting at first.
Everything starts with attitude, so you might as well start off on the right foot.


text:
Show All Answers
The EcoSave Program is a simplified process designed for Nelson Hydro customers, who are homeowners, to have a home energy evaluation completed to determine what energy efficiency upgrades (retrofits) can be done to reduce energy consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions. This program also offers quick access to current rebate offers.
The EcoSave Energy Retrofits Program is one of the key strategies for the City of Nelsons Low Carbon Path to 2040: Community Energy and Emission Action Plan.
The owner of the home or business may register for the program. The home or business must be located in the Nelson Hydro service area. Rental spaces are eligible; the owner must register for the program. Contact the EcoSave Program Manager for more information at 250-352-8132.
After you submit your registration form, you will be contacted, and a home energy evaluation will be scheduled, you will receive a "Welcome to EcoSave" email with rebate and contractor information.
Energy evaluations are completed by a Certified Energy Advisor who is licensed and certified through Natural Resources Canada and working for a service organization.
Contact the EcoSave Program Manager at 250-352-8132 for current pricing.
Payment is due at the time of the scheduling of the energy evaluation.
The Certified Energy Advisor will mail or email a customized retrofit plan to you. This energy efficiency evaluation report will include all of the recommendations that were discussed during the visit, plus an energy efficiency rating score (EnerGuide label) for your home.
No, there is not an approved contractors list for the EcoSave Program.
Contractors will not be pre-qualified nor referred for the program. It is the sole decision of the homeowner which contractor to hire. For simplicity, we have included a contractor contact list, meant only for convenience. You may choose additional contractors over and above the list. For more information and tips on hiring a contractor, visit Canadian Home Builder's Association.
No, it is not a program requirement to complete the recommended retrofits. However, it is the objective of the EcoSave program to encourage participants to improve energy efficiency by completing some or all of the recommended upgrades. Financing options are available.
An EnerGuide rating, label and report will help you better understand your home's energy performance, which may help you lower your energy use.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You may remember back in mid May Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alexa O'Brien, Kai Wargalla, Birgetta Jonsdottir and the US Day of Rage won a surprising, nee stunning, ruling from Judge Katherine Forrest in the Southern District of New York. Many of us who litigate felt the plaintiffs would never even be given standing, much less prevail on the merits. But, in a ruling dated May 16, 2012, Forrest gave the plaintiffs not only standing, but the affirmative win by issuing a preliminary injunction.
Late yesterday came even better news for Hedges and friends, the issuance of a permanent injunction. I will say this about Judge Forrest, she is not brief as the first ruling was 68 pages, and todays consumes a whopping 112 pages. Here is the setup, as laid out by Forrest (p. 3-4):
Plaintiffs are a group of writers, journalists, and activists whose work regularly requires them to engage in writing, speech, and associational activities protected by the First Amendment. They have testified credibly to having an actual and reasonable fear that their activities will subject them to indefinite military detention pursuant to § 1021(b)(2).
At the March hearing, the Government was unable to provide this Court with any assurance that plaintiffs' activities (about which the Government had known–and indeed about which the Government had previously deposed those individuals) would not in fact subject plaintiffs to military detention pursuant to § 1021(b)(2). Following the March hearing (and the Court's May 16 Opinion on the preliminary injunction), the Government fundamentally changed its position.
In its May 25, 2012, motion for reconsideration, the Government put forth the qualified position that plaintiffs' particular activities, as described at the hearing, if described accurately, if they were independent, and without more, would not subject plaintiffs to military detention under § 1021. The Government did not–and does not–generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under § 1021(b)(2). The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for greater protection: it prohibits Congress from passing any law abridging speech and associational rights. To the extent that § 1021(b)(2) purports to encompass protected First Amendment activities, it is unconstitutionally overbroad.
A key question throughout these proceedings has been, however, precisely what the statute means–what and whose activities it is meant to cover. That is no small question bandied about amongst lawyers and a judge steeped in arcane questions of constitutional law; it is a question of defining an individual's core liberties. The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention–potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity–and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2).
Those were the stakes in the litigation and Katherine Forrest did not undersell them in the least. Now, truth be told, there is not really a lot of new ground covered in the new decision that was not touched on in the earlier ruling, but it is even more fleshed out and also formalizes a declination of the government's motion for reconsideration filed in June as well as argument on the additional grounds necessary for a permanent injunction over the preliminary injunction initially entered. As Charlie Savage pointed out, it is a nice little gift coming on the same day the House voted 301-118 to re-up the dastardly FISA Amendments Act.
And Forrest really did go out of her way to slap back the government's bleating that courts should stay out of such concerns and leave them to the Executive and Legislative Branches, an altogether far too common and grating refrain in DOJ arguments in national security cases (p 11-12):
The Court is mindful of the extraordinary importance of the Government's efforts to safeguard the country from terrorism. In light of the high stakes of those efforts as well as the executive branch's expertise, courts undoubtedly owe the political branches a great deal of deference in the area of national security. See Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2711 (2010). Moreover, these same considerations counsel particular attention to the Court's obligation to avoid unnecessary constitutional questions in this context. Cf. Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of."). Nevertheless, the Constitution places affirmative limits on the power of the Executive to act, and these limits apply in times of peace as well as times of war. See, e.g., Ex parte Milligan, 72 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 125-26 (1866). Heedlessly to refuse to hear constitutional challenges to the Executive's conduct in the name of deference would be to abdicate this Court's responsibility to safeguard the rights it has sworn to uphold.
And this Court gives appropriate and due deference to the executive and legislative branches–and understands the limits of its own (and their) role(s). But due deference does not eliminate the judicial obligation to rule on properly presented constitutional questions. Courts must safeguard core constitutional rights. A long line of Supreme Court precedent adheres to that fundamental principle in unequivocal language. Although it is true that there are scattered cases–primarily decided during World War II–in which the Supreme Court sanctioned undue deference to the executive and legislative branches on constitutional questions, those cases are generally now considered an embarrassment (e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (upholding the internment of Japanese Americans based on wartime security concerns)), or referred to by current members of the Supreme Court (for instance, Justice Scalia) as "wrong" (e.g., Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) (allowing for the military detention and execution of an American citizen detained on U.S. soil)). Presented, as this Court is, with unavoidable constitutional questions, it declines to step aside.
If you relish such things, especially the rare ones where the good guys win, the whole decision is at the link. If you would like to read more, but not the entire 112 pages, the summary portion is contained in pages 3-14. For those longtime readers of Emptywheel, note the citation to Ex Parte Milligan on pages 12, 37, 51 and 79. Our old friend Mary would have been overjoyed by such liberal use of Milligan, especially this passage by Judge Forrest on pages 79-80:
A few years later, in Milligan, the Supreme Court held:
"Neither the President, nor Congress, nor the Judiciary can disturb any one of the safeguards of civil liberty incorporated into the Constitution, except so far as the right is given to suspend in certain cases the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus." 71 U.S. at 4. The Court stated, "No book can be found in any library to justify the assertion that military tribunals may try a citizen at a place where the courts are open." Id. at 73.
Indeed. Keep this is mind, because the concept of military tribunals not being appropriate to try citizens "at a place where the courts are open" is a critical one. Although the language invokes "citizens", the larger concept of functioning courts being preferable will be coming front and center as the Guantanamo Military Tribunals move through trial and into the appellate stages, and will also be in play should Julian Assange ever really be extradited for trial in the United States (a big if, but one constantly discussed).
So, all in all, yesterday's decision by Judge Forrest has far ranging significance, and is a remarkably refreshing and admirable one that should be widely celebrated. That said, a note of caution is in order: Enjoy it while you can, because if you are the betting type, I would not lay much of the family farm on Forrest's decision holding up on appeal.
There was talk on Twitter that the Supreme Court would reverse, but I am not sure it even gets that far. In fact, unless Chris Hedges et. al get a very favorable draw on the composition of their appellate panel in the 2nd Circuit, I am dubious it goes further than that. And one thing is sure, the government is going to appeal.


text:
But before we stuff ourselves with good food, we will be covering four topics at the IBM Center covering:
If you are in the area and would like to attend both the meeting and the buffet lunch please let us know by December 4 since we need to get a head count.
Here is the link to the web site about the meeting.
GRANITE December 2008 Meeting


text:
Event details
If you have ever looked up at the sky on a clear night, you may have asked yourself: "Where did the Milky Way come from?". This question has fascinated humans for thousands of years and lies at the heart of modern astronomy. Remarkably, we now know that many of the stars in the Milky Way actually originated in other galaxies which were consumedby our own Galaxy during its billions of years of evolution.
Join Dr. Mark Wilkinson as he explores what we know (and what we don't know) about how a cosmic soup of dark matter, gas and dust produced the magnificent range of stars and galaxies that we see in the Universe today. Along the way he will show how astronomers are using the world'smost powerful telescopes and computers to answer questions such as: What happens when galaxies collide? How do supermassive black holes grow? And what can juggling teach us about astronomy?
Dr Mark Wilkinson is a Royal Society Research Fellow at the University of Leicester. His research is currently focussed on dark matter, the invisible substance whose gravity holds galaxies together. He uses a combination of telescope observations and computer simulations to dissect the Milky Way and other nearby galaxies and use them as probes of the history of the Universe. He is co-chair of the DiRAC High Performance Computing facility for theoretical astrophysics, particle physics and cosmology in the UK. He is regularly invited to give public lectures about astronomy, and also organises interactive workshops in schools.
This event is suitable for adults and children 14 years old and over.
Attending this event
This event is free to attend and open to all. No tickets are required. Doors open at 2.15pm and seats will be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis.
Enquiries: Contact the events team